Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

REDD+ benefit sharing: discourses on who ‘should’ benefit


Published on

This presentation, given on 27 September 2012 in connection with CIFOR’s new REDD+ Benefit Sharing project, discusses the idea of benefit sharing and how it relates to REDD+ and various stakeholders in the REDD+ process. Some examples of benefit sharing policies and proposals in various countries are given. The presentation also gives an overview of the complexities involved in the question: who should benefit from REDD+? For more information, see Chapter 8 of Analysing REDD+: “Who should benefit and why? Discourses on REDD+ benefit sharing” (go to

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

REDD+ benefit sharing: discourses on who ‘should’ benefit

  1. 1. REDD+ benefit sharing: discourses on who ‘should’ benefit Cecilia Luttrell , Lasse Loft (BiK-F) , Maria Fernanda Gebara (Getulio Vargas Foundation), Demetrius Kwerka , Maria Brockhaus; William Sunderlin; Bogor 27th Sept 2012
  2. 2. Overview of what we looked at Description of incipient BS arrangements at national and local levels Discourses on who should benefit Tradeoffs between objectives of REDD+ Data from GCS work on national policy processes in 6 countries and 21 projects,
  3. 3. Definitions
  4. 4. What do we mean by ‘benefit sharing’• Benefit sharing is the distribution of direct and indirect net gains from the implementation of REDD+• Two types of direct benefits: • Monetary gains from international and national finance related to REDD+ • Benefits associated with the increased availability of forest products & ecosystem services• Indirect benefits e.g. improved governance infrastructure provision
  5. 5. What is a BSM• Range of institutional means: governance structures and instruments that distribute finance and other net benefits from REDD+ – Direct incentives e.g. cash transfers, PFM, ICDPs – Policy and governance processes e.g. tenure clarification, law enforcement, agricultural intensification
  6. 6. Benefits come with costs: net benefits are what matter• Direct financial outlays related to REDD+ (implementation and transaction costs)• Costs arising from changes in forest land and resource use (opportunity costs)• Cost recovery (compensation) vs. the surplus (REDD rent)
  7. 7. BS proposals and policy at the national level National level-proposals & activities Proposals financial arrangementsBrazil No national policy to date; state & sub- Public funding: Amazon Fund & Bolsa Verde; state projects define own BS arrangements ; Incl. few direct PES schemesIndonesia Min. of Forestry regulations (2009 & Contested Min of Forestry (2009) 2012) projects need to obtain regulations specifies % to gov. project ministerial approval; number of developers and communities; Presidential projects without approval Taskforce designing parallel funding mechanismVietnam Draft REDD+ strategy: benefits to be UNREDD+ proposes a National Fund shared between communities, overseen by multi-stakeholder body; organisations and local authorities revenues according to provincial Provincial level PES trialled performance. Projects moving away from an expectation of a voluntary market
  8. 8. REDD+ projects and their proposed and actual BSM in TanzaniaProject Details of BSMsTFCG- Dividends paid to village member of the village (under village by-laws); up-Kilosa & front funds & individual payments based on the potential average avoidedLindi emissions per year; village assemblies decide whether to use dividends on community projectsMpingo Acquiring land certificates; boundary clarification; assistance in selling timber through FSC and land use and management plans. Originally the project planned to pass on profits to communities after deducting costs but this was controversial so now they are discussing a percentage arrangementCARE Distribution of carbon revenues will use existing village savings and loan systems. The rights to carbon will be negotiated between CARE and the community through an exisiting intermediary organisation
  9. 9. Discourses on benefit sharing
  10. 10. Discourses on ‘who should benefit’? There are tradeoffs involved in these choice implied by the different discourses which the implications for design of BSMsEffectiveness/efficiency vs. equity discourses Effectiveness/efficiency = goal of emission reductions Equity = who has the right to benefit
  11. 11. Efficiency & EffectivenessREDD+ as a mechanism for paying forest users & owners to reduce emissions:• Focus on emissions reductions• Payments as incentive for those who change in behaviour• Benefits should go to people providing these services
  12. 12. “REDD benefits should reward large-scale industries/companies for reducing forest emissions”Data from CIFOR’s GCS’ policy network analysis by Maria Brockhaus (coordination), Levania Santosa & Moira Moeliano (Indonesia), Maria Fernanda Gebara & Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil)
  13. 13. Equity discoursesEquity discourses take a distributional perspective and ask who are the actors who have the „right“ to benefit from REDD+:• Focus on preventing unfair distributional results• Strengthening moral and political legitimacy of REDD+ mechanism
  14. 14. Equity Discourse I:Benefits should go to those with legal rightsBut no REDD+ country has legallydefined carbon rightsWill existing tenure rights be the legalbasis for REDD+ BS?  carbon rights not necessarily vested in rights to land or trees?  Distinct from right to benefit from sale Will state claim carbon rights? Risk that those without formal rights may lose out
  15. 15. The legal status of land-use and implications for benefit sharingProject Driver StatuslocationKalimantan Timber, oil palm, mining, Legal(Indonesia) concessions, swidden Small scale logging & hunting, Legally ambiguous fishing, NTFPsTransamazon Subsistence hunting, small scale Legal(Brazil) forest management, NTFPs Swidden, small scale agriculture, Legal/illegal small and large scale ranching depends on type & and logging location Commercial hunting Illegal
  16. 16. Equity Discourse II: Benefits should go to low emitting forest stewards Many of these are low-emission situations No additionality A possible solution is a baseline definition based on future threats
  17. 17. Equity Discourse III:Benefits should go to those incurring costs Compensate for implementation, transaction and opportunity costs regardless of emission reductions In early stages of REDD+ implementation there is a need to incentivize actors to get involved Inputs are easier to define than to measure emissions reductions
  18. 18. Opportunity cost to whom? The carbon emitting activity that if reduced would …..Project ….incur the …affect the …create the …contributelocation greatest greatest most the most to financial losses number of significant carbon people change in land emissions use over the largest areaKaliimantan Large scale: Swidden, Large scale: Large scale:(Indonesia) logging, oil palm fishing, NTFP logging, oil logging & oil & mining palm & mining palmTransamazon Small-scale Swidden Small-scale Small-scale(Brazil) cattle cattle cattleAcre (Brazil) Large scale Swidden Large scale Large scale ranching ranching ranching
  19. 19. Equity Discourse IV:Benefits should go to effective facilitators of implementation  What is the ‘right’ proportion? • to attract investors • but prevent windfall profits?  Right for governments to retain some revenue for incurring implementation and transaction costs?  What‘s the exact level of costs occurring to government?
  20. 20. Negotiating choices: legitimacy of the process Clarify objectives of national REDD+ implementation before designing BSMs Clarity on objectives help to define who ‘should‘ benefit Lack of clarity over what is the ‘competent agency’ with these decision making powers Legitimacy of the decision needs the decision to be made by those with: • Legal mandate to make them • Adherence to due process & to procedural rights Requires a legitimate decision-making process and institutions
  21. 21. Key questions for WP5 Who are the legitimate beneficiaries? Criteria Need to reward performance Liability What is an efficient distribution of costs? Property rights What are the structures needed for financial transfers? What should be the processes for decision making and implementation Oversight and monitoring
  22. 22. Sectors to learn from: some examples- PES /CBNRM - Development and public administration: PFM, anti corruption, performance assessment- Financial structures: fiscal transfers , subsidies, sovereign wealth fund etc- Specific processes: extractive sector mechanisms, FLEGT, CBD, ecological taxation